ILNews

Opinions Jan. 17, 2013

January 17, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana
15A01-1110-CR-550
Criminal. Reverses convictions and sentences for intimidation of Dr. Edward Connor and intimidation of Heidi Humphrey and remands with instructions to vacate, which does not alter Daniel Brewington’s aggregate sentence. Affirms conviction for intimidation of Judge James Humphrey and for attempted obstruction of justice relating to Connor. Affirms in all other respects.

Steven A. Ballaban v. Bloomington Jewish Community, Inc., a/k/a Congregation Beth Shalom, Paul Eisenberg, Judith Rose, Sarah Wasserman, Lynne Foster Shifriss, and Roberta "Didi" Kerler
53A01-1207-CT-315
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Ballaban’s motion to correct error and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bloomington Jewish Community Inc. and other appellees on his complaint after he was fired as rabbi for Beth Shalom. Finds evidence supporting the ruling that the ministerial exception applies. Denies appellees’ request for attorney fees. Judges Vaidik and Bailey concur in result in separate opinions.  

Kyle W. Dixon v. Ara J. Dixon
34A05-1206-DR-303
Domestic relation. Affirms order granting the notice of intent to relocate filed by Ara Dixon. The mother’s intent to relocate was made in good faith and not in haste, and father would be able to maintain virtually the same parenting time schedule.

Marilyn Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-457
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and battery.

B.B., Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1205-JV-228
Juvenile.  Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for having committed what would be Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal if committed by an adult.

Jeff Clade v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1206-CT-509
Civil tort.  Grants rehearing to clarify original opinion and affirms, in which the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Hunt on a negligence claim. Judge Riley would deny rehearing.

Steven Newville v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1205-CR-379
Criminal. Affirms Class A felony conviction of attempted rape.

Garrick P. Twiford, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1205-CR-284
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT